Comments on: What U.S. broadband problem?

Policy analysts Scott Wallsten and Seth Sacher say the conventional wisdom is ripe for debunking.

[directorblue]

Any op-ed piece that fails to mention Brand X decision deserves ridicule...

In short, Brand X and related decisions allows cable and telco companies to completely control the last-mile. No longer does a carrier have to unbundle the last-mile and allow others to resell the connectivity.

Instead, the cable/telco duopoly -- through massive lobbying expenditures and other questionable tactics such as "astroturf" -- has come dangerously close to revamping the Internet.

Their vision: to pick and choose the winners and losers in the content space: from search engines, to telephony, to file-sharing, to IM. In other words, they seek to turn the Internet into Cable TV.

You can find some background material here:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/stand-with-john-kerry-on-net.html

Then go to http://www.savetheinternet.com and make your voice heard over the ringing of the lobbyists' cash registers.

[directorblue]

Any op-ed piece that fails to mention Brand X decision deserves ridicule...

In short, Brand X and related decisions allows cable and telco companies to completely control the last-mile. No longer does a carrier have to unbundle the last-mile and allow others to resell the connectivity.

Instead, the cable/telco duopoly -- through massive lobbying expenditures and other questionable tactics such as "astroturf" -- has come dangerously close to revamping the Internet.

Their vision: to pick and choose the winners and losers in the content space: from search engines, to telephony, to file-sharing, to IM. In other words, they seek to turn the Internet into Cable TV.

You can find some background material here:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/stand-with-john-kerry-on-net.html

Then go to http://www.savetheinternet.com and make your voice heard over the ringing of the lobbyists' cash registers.

[CallingPlanetEarth]

What color is the sky in your world?

If articles like yours are red herrings intended to increase site registrations, it worked for me! I live in an area with a metropolitan population of 600,000, an area that has a reputation for high-tech industry. There are TWO choices for broadband here, DSL and cable. Both cost $50/mo and have been at that price level for years. With DSL, that $50 figure is for the 640kbps service level on up. If you can only get 640kbps at your home due to distance from the central office or poor line quality, you still pay $50/mo, the same amount as someone who can get much higher transfer rates.

This area is in the broadband stone age due to a lack of REAL competition. Don't tell us that there's no problem. Perhaps not in YOUR area of the country.

[CallingPlanetEarth]

What color is the sky in your world?

If articles like yours are red herrings intended to increase site registrations, it worked for me! I live in an area with a metropolitan population of 600,000, an area that has a reputation for high-tech industry. There are TWO choices for broadband here, DSL and cable. Both cost $50/mo and have been at that price level for years. With DSL, that $50 figure is for the 640kbps service level on up. If you can only get 640kbps at your home due to distance from the central office or poor line quality, you still pay $50/mo, the same amount as someone who can get much higher transfer rates.

This area is in the broadband stone age due to a lack of REAL competition. Don't tell us that there's no problem. Perhaps not in YOUR area of the country.

[lynchdavid]

support net neutrality, is this article whack??

ooooh, I read this whole article, that tries to flip the debate, and then at the end say, oh by the way, don't support net neutrality.

You dedicated very little time to discussing net neutrality, ironic that it's the debate of our time. You also, with overall contradictions, arrive at your point. Comparing DSL and cable, as highly competitive falls a bit on deaf ears.

Let me summarize your article "Since competition has been fairly mild between the duopolies, we should change that by giving carriers more control"

Net-neutrality means protecting from carriers at the minimum, blocking webcontent, that is all that net-neutrality is asking for, to prevent blatant abuse, by networks, which is a very real concern, and deserves at minimum a shred of protection from possible new pricing extorting.

[lynchdavid]

NET NEUTRALITY simply protects basic Free Speech

If we go down a course of legislation, where

we provide no net-neutrality provisions in any respect.

Then we are simply making it possible for internet providers to block FREE SPEECH. It doesn't seem likely, but it is entirely possible that this could happen.

Supporting the minimal net-neutrality legislation, would in no way prevent ISP's from selling faster service!

[lynchdavid]

support net neutrality, is this article whack??

ooooh, I read this whole article, that tries to flip the debate, and then at the end say, oh by the way, don't support net neutrality.

You dedicated very little time to discussing net neutrality, ironic that it's the debate of our time. You also, with overall contradictions, arrive at your point. Comparing DSL and cable, as highly competitive falls a bit on deaf ears.

Let me summarize your article "Since competition has been fairly mild between the duopolies, we should change that by giving carriers more control"

Net-neutrality means protecting from carriers at the minimum, blocking webcontent, that is all that net-neutrality is asking for, to prevent blatant abuse, by networks, which is a very real concern, and deserves at minimum a shred of protection from possible new pricing extorting.

[lynchdavid]

NET NEUTRALITY simply protects basic Free Speech

If we go down a course of legislation, where

we provide no net-neutrality provisions in any respect.

Then we are simply making it possible for internet providers to block FREE SPEECH. It doesn't seem likely, but it is entirely possible that this could happen.

Supporting the minimal net-neutrality legislation, would in no way prevent ISP's from selling faster service!

[volterwd]

"Tenth is 10 spots too low,"

So he wants to be 0th?

[volterwd]

"Tenth is 10 spots too low,"

So he wants to be 0th?

[bluemist9999]

Logistics are vastly different for the US

In other countries, there is a much higher population density PLUS a lot less land to cover.

I can't even imagine how difficult or how much it would cost to create a 1 GB/sec infrastructure in a very large, sparsely populated country. Large rural areas and suburban areas are much harder to service.

Sure, I'd love to see higher bandwidth speeds, but I know it is a colossal undertaking. Billions of dollars sounds like a lot of money, but when trying to wire 3,537,441 square miles of space to service roughly 300 million people, that doesn't seem so vast anymore.

[seattlerealist]

Logistics are necessarily the issue.

While the distance involved is bringing broadband to the masses does have some interesting challenges, I would counter that there are resources currently not being used that could help in the expansion of broadband.
Case in point all the fiber cable laid along the I5 corridor from Seattle to Portland. Much of this infrastructure is not even being used. It was laid during the dot-com boom and still has just to be used. The Pacific Northwest can't be the only region in the US where this has occurred.
And if you look at Verizon's ever expanding FiOS service, you will see that some companies are working to bring fiber to people's homes at rates cheaper than current packages from other carries.
Comcast's high-speed internet is a minimum of $45 a month; where as FiOS will only be $35 and not subject to the interference currently being experienced on ComCast's network. ComCastic now has a meaning ComCast's marketing gurus never thought of.

[seattlerealist]

Logistics aren't necessarily the issue.

While the distance involved is bringing broadband to the masses does have some interesting challenges, I would counter that there are resources currently not being used that could help in the expansion of broadband.
Case in point all the fiber cable laid along the I5 corridor from Seattle to Portland. Much of this infrastructure is not even being used. It was laid during the dot-com boom and still has just to be used. The Pacific Northwest can't be the only region in the US where this has occurred.
And if you look at Verizon's ever expanding FiOS service, you will see that some companies are working to bring fiber to people's homes at rates cheaper than current packages from other carries.
Comcast's high-speed internet is a minimum of $45 a month; where as FiOS will only be $35 and not subject to the interference currently being experienced on ComCast's network. ComCastic now has a meaning ComCast's marketing gurus never thought of.

[bluemist9999]

Logistics are vastly different for the US

In other countries, there is a much higher population density PLUS a lot less land to cover.

I can't even imagine how difficult or how much it would cost to create a 1 GB/sec infrastructure in a very large, sparsely populated country. Large rural areas and suburban areas are much harder to service.

Sure, I'd love to see higher bandwidth speeds, but I know it is a colossal undertaking. Billions of dollars sounds like a lot of money, but when trying to wire 3,537,441 square miles of space to service roughly 300 million people, that doesn't seem so vast anymore.

[seattlerealist]

Logistics are necessarily the issue.

While the distance involved is bringing broadband to the masses does have some interesting challenges, I would counter that there are resources currently not being used that could help in the expansion of broadband.
Case in point all the fiber cable laid along the I5 corridor from Seattle to Portland. Much of this infrastructure is not even being used. It was laid during the dot-com boom and still has just to be used. The Pacific Northwest can't be the only region in the US where this has occurred.
And if you look at Verizon's ever expanding FiOS service, you will see that some companies are working to bring fiber to people's homes at rates cheaper than current packages from other carries.
Comcast's high-speed internet is a minimum of $45 a month; where as FiOS will only be $35 and not subject to the interference currently being experienced on ComCast's network. ComCastic now has a meaning ComCast's marketing gurus never thought of.

[seattlerealist]

Logistics aren't necessarily the issue.

While the distance involved is bringing broadband to the masses does have some interesting challenges, I would counter that there are resources currently not being used that could help in the expansion of broadband.
Case in point all the fiber cable laid along the I5 corridor from Seattle to Portland. Much of this infrastructure is not even being used. It was laid during the dot-com boom and still has just to be used. The Pacific Northwest can't be the only region in the US where this has occurred.
And if you look at Verizon's ever expanding FiOS service, you will see that some companies are working to bring fiber to people's homes at rates cheaper than current packages from other carries.
Comcast's high-speed internet is a minimum of $45 a month; where as FiOS will only be $35 and not subject to the interference currently being experienced on ComCast's network. ComCastic now has a meaning ComCast's marketing gurus never thought of.